Current location in this text. Enter a Perseus citation to go to another section or work. Full search
options are on the right side and top of the page.

[1330a]
[1]
but community in it brought about in a friendly way
by the use of it,1 and we hold that no
citizen should be ill supplied with means of subsistence. As to common meals,
all agree that this is an institution advantageous for well-organized states to
possess; our own reasons for sharing this view we will state later.2 But the
common meals must be shared by all the citizens, and it is not easy for the poor
to contribute their assessed share from their private means and also to maintain
their household as well. And
moreover the expenses connected with religion are the common concern of the
whole state. It is necessary therefore for the land to be divided into two
parts, of which one must be common and the other the private property of
individuals; and each of these two divisions must again be divided in two. Of
the common land one portion should be assigned to the services of religion, and
the other to defray the cost of the common meals; of the land in private
ownership one part should be the district near the frontiers, and another the
district near the city, in order that two plots may be assigned to each citizen
and all may have a share in both districts. This arrangement satisfies equity and justice, and also
conduces to greater unanimity in facing border warfare. Where this system is not
followed, one set of people are reckless about quarrelling with the neighboring
states,
[20]
and the other set are too
cautious and neglect considerations of honor. Hence some people have a law that
the citizens whose land is near the frontier are not to take part in
deliberation as to wars against neighboring states, on the ground that private
interest would prevent them from being able to take counsel wisely. The land
must therefore be divided up in this manner because of the reasons
aforesaid.

Those who are to cultivate the soil should best of all, if the
ideal system is to be stated, be slaves, not drawn from people all of one tribe
nor of a spirited character （for thus they would be both serviceable
for their work and safe to abstain from insurrection）, but as a second
best they should be alien serfs of a similar nature. Of these laborers those in
private employment must be among the private possessions of the owners of the
estates, and those working on the common land common property. How slaves should
be employed, and why it is advantageous that all slaves should have their
freedom set before them as a reward, we will say later.3

It
has been said before that the city should so far as circumstances permit be in
communication alike with the mainland, the sea and the whole of its territory.
The site of the city itself we must pray that fortune may place on sloping
ground, having regard to four considerations4: first, as a thing essential, the consideration of
health （for cities whose site slopes east or towards the breezes that
blow from the sunrise are more healthy, and in the second degree those that face
away from the north wind,5
for these are milder in winter）;

1 This vague phrase
（based on the proverb κοινὰτὰτῶνφίλων, ‘friends' goods are common
property’） seems to denote some sort of customary
communism in the cultivation of the land and enjoyment of the produce,
combined with private ownership of the freehold.

An XML version of this text is available for download,
with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted
changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.